This article aims to contribute to the social science discussion on urban policies and the integration (or exclusion) of the perspectives of marginalized groups by asking the question: If there were to be exhaustive urban planning relating to drug issues, what role should drug users play in the planning process? Our answer involves the use of a set of two complementary qualitative cartographic methods which allow us to focus on the inclusion of the voices of marginalized groups. This article is based on methodological experimentation in different French and German cities without aiming at a comparison. The article exposes and discusses firstly an individual interview method called ‘Emotional Mapping’, and secondly a participatory mapping workshop called ‘Ideal City Mapping’. The output of this project has been a web of visual and textual documents, in the form of reports, papers, articles and events such as a travelling exhibition, with the aim of engaging in public discussions with various key players.
AhmedS (2004) Affective economies. Social Text22(2): 117–139.
2.
AzocarB (2016) Errance urbaine, scènes de consommation de drogues et réduction des risques: les défis pour la ville et les politiques publiques aujourd’hui. Mouvements86(2): 112.
3.
BarellaJ (2020) Ramener la justice sociale au centre de la carte: propositions pour un renouvellement critique de la cartographie participative axée sur l’’empowerment’. Geographica Helvetica75(3): 271–284.
4.
BelinaB (2003) Evicting the undesirables. The idealism of public space and the materialism of the bourgeois state. BelGeo1: 47–62.
5.
BelinaB (2009) Kriminalitätskartierung – Produkt oder Mittel neoliberalen Regierens, oder: Wenn falsche Abstraktionen durch die Macht der Karte praktisch wahr gemacht werden. Geographische Zeitschrift97(4): 192–212.
6.
BelinaBGermesM (2016) Kriminalitätskartierung als Methode der Kritischen Kriminologie?Kriminologisches Journal1: 24–46.
7.
BesteH (2000) Morphologie der Macht: urbane ‘Sicherheit’ und die Profitorientierung sozialer Kontrolle. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
8.
BolandPFox-RogersLMcKayS, et al. (2020) Illegal geographies and spatial planning: Developing a dialogue on drugs. Territory, Politics, Governance8(2): 177–203.
9.
BouhnikP (2002) La drogue comme expérience intime. Ethnologie française32(1).
10.
ButlerC (2009) Critical legal studies and the politics of space. Social & Legal Studies18(3): 313–332.
11.
CaquardSCartwrightW (2014) Narrative cartography: From mapping stories to the narrative of maps and mapping. The Cartographic Journal51(2): 101–106.
12.
CastelR (2011) La dynamique des processus de marginalisation: de la vulnérabilité à la désaffiliation. Cahiers de recherche sociologique22: 11–27.
13.
ChoplinALozivitM (2019) Mettre un quartier sur la carte: Cartographie participative et innovation numérique à Cotonou (Bénin). Cybergeo.
14.
Counter Cartography CollectiveDaltonCMason-DeeseL (2012) Counter (mapping) actions: Mapping as militant research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies11(3): 439–466.
15.
CouplandHMaherL (2005) Clients or colleagues? Reflections on the process of participatory action research with young injecting drug users. International Journal of Drug Policy16(3): 191–198.
16.
CusickLKimberJ (2007) Public perceptions of public drug use in four UK urban sites. International Journal of Drug Policy18: 10–17.
17.
SouzadeLopesMarcelo (2006) Social movements as ‘critical urban planning’ agents. City10(3): 327–342.
18.
Del CasinoVDHannaSP (2005) Beyond the ‘binaries’: A methodological intervention for interrogating maps as representational practices. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies4(1): 34–56.
19.
DesrosièresA (2008) Gouverner par les nombres: L’argument statistique II. Paris: Presses de l’École des Mines.
20.
DidierE (2011) L’État néolibéral ment-il ? ‘Chanstique’ et statistiques de police. Terrain (57): 66–81.
21.
DoveyKFitzgeraldJChoiY (2001) Safety becomes danger: Dilemmas of drug use in public space. Health and Place7: 319–331.
22.
DuncanTSebarBLeeJ, et al. (2019) Mapping the spatial and affective composition of care in a drug consumption room in Germany. Social & Cultural Geography22(5): 627–646.
23.
FleuryAFroment-MeuriceM (2014) Embellir et dissuader: les politiques d’espaces publics à Paris. In: Da CunhaAGuinandS (eds) Qualité urbaine, justice spatiale et projet. Ménager la ville. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 67–79.
24.
GermesM (2014) Cartographies policières: la dimension vernaculaire du contrôle territorial. EchoGéo28.
25.
GermesMGuarascioFKlausL (2020a) Drogen und Stadt – Eine alternative Planung. Sichtweise marginalisierter Drogenkonsument*innen auf ihre Stadt. Online exhibition. Available at: https://drogenalternativeplanung.wordpress.com(accessed 10 September 2020).
GiesekingJJ (2013) Where we go from here: The mental sketch mapping method and its analytic components. Qualitative Inquiry19(1): 712–724.
28.
GruenewaldPJ (2013) Geospatial analyses of alcohol and drug problems: Empirical needs and theoretical foundations. GeoJournal78(3): 443–450.
29.
GuinardPTratnjekB (2016) Géographies, géographes et émotions. Carnets de géographes9.
30.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
31.
HarleyB (1989) Deconstructing the map. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization26(2): 1–20.
32.
HarveyD (2011) Le capitalisme contre le droit à la ville: Néolibéralisme, urbanisation, résistances. Paris: Éditions Amsterdam.
33.
Jauffret-RoustideMGranierJ-M (2017) Repenser la politique des drogues: Introduction. Esprit (2): 39–54.
34.
JayneMValentineGHollowaySL (2010) Emotional, embodied and affective geographies of alcohol, drinking and drunkenness. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers35(4): 540–554.
35.
KammersgaardT (2020) Being ‘in place’, being ‘out of place’: Problematising marginalised drug users in two cities. International Journal of Drug Policy75: 102589.
KimAM (2015) Critical cartography 2.0: From ‘participatory mapping’ to authored visualizations of power and people. Landscape and Urban Planning142: 215–225.
38.
KlausLGermesM (2019) Emotional mapping: Towards a geographical explanation of drug use. In: KalóZTieberghienJKorf (eds) Why? Explanations for Drug Use and Drug Dealing in Social Drug Research. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers, 57–74.
39.
KlausLDichtlAJaminD, et al. (2020) Workshop. ‘Partizipatives Mapping’ in Frankfurt: ‘Was ist unser ideales Viertel?’ – Sichtweisen von Drogenkonsumierenden im Frankfurter Bahnhofsviertel. Report for the DRUSEC Project. Available at: https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/88472859/Frankfurter_Workshop_Mapping_gesamt.pdf(accessed 16 June 2020).
40.
KlausLJaminDDichtlA (2019) Zum Umgang mit Drogenszenen im öffentlichen Raum. In: AkzeptDeutsche Aidshilfe (eds) 6. Alternativer Drogen- Und Suchtbericht2019. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publisher, 25–31.
41.
KnealeJFrenchS (2008) Mapping alcohol: Health, policy and the geographies of problem drinking in Britain. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy15(3): 233–249.
42.
orangotango+kollektiv (2018) This is Not an Atlas: A Global Collection of Counter-Cartographies. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
43.
KwanMP (2002) Feminist visualization. Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers92(4): 645–661.
44.
LefebvreH ([1974] 2000) La production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos.
45.
LefebvreH ([1967] 2009) Le droit à la ville. Paris: Economica; Anthropos.
46.
LynchK (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
47.
MartinezANLorvickJKralAH (2014) Activity spaces among injection drug users in San Francisco. International Journal of Drug Policy25(3): 516–524.
48.
MekdjianSMoreauM (2016) Re-drawing the experience: Art, science and migratory conditions. antiAtlas Journal1.
49.
MekdjianSOlmedoE (2016) Médier les récits de vie. Expérimentations de cartographies narratives et sensibles. M@ppemonde118.
50.
MogelLBhagatA (2008) An Atlas of Radical Cartography. Los Angeles: Journal of Aesthetics & Protest Press.
ParkerB (2006) Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. The Professional Geographer58(4): 470–484.
53.
PavlovskayaMMartinKS (2007) Feminism and Geographic Information Systems: From a missing object to a mapping subject. Geography Compass1(3): 583–606.
54.
PennayAMantonESavicM (2014) Geographies of exclusion: Street drinking, gentrification and contests over public space. International Journal of Drug Policy25(6): 1084–1093.
55.
QianJ (2020): Geographies of public space: Variegated publicness, variegated epistemologies. In: Progress in Human Geography44(1): 77–98.
56.
RhodesTHedrichD (2010) Harm reduction and the mainstream. In: RhodesTHedrichD (eds) Harm Reduction: Evidence, Impacts and Challenges. Report, EMCDDA Monographs. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 19–33.
57.
RhodesTWattsLDaviesS, et al. (2007) Risk, shame and the public injector: A qualitative study of drug injecting in South Wales. Social Science & Medicine65(3): 572–585.
58.
RoseG (2007) Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press.
59.
SchurrCStrüverA (2016) ‘The rest’: Geographien des Alltäglichen zwischen Affekt, Emotion und Repräsentation. Geographica Helvetica71(2): 87–97.
60.
ShirlowPPainR (2003) The geographies and politics of fear. Capital & Class27(2): 15–26.
61.
SlettoBI (2009) ‘We drew what we imagined’: Participatory mapping, performance, and the arts of landscape making. Current Anthropology50(4): 443–476.
62.
SlomkaJMcCurdySRatliffEATimpsonSWilliamsML (2007) Perceptions of financial payment for research participation among African-American drug users in HIV studies. Journal of General Internal Medicine22(10): 1403–1409.
63.
SundbergJ (2003) Masculinist epistemologies and the politics of fieldwork in Latin Americanist geography. The Professional Geographer55(2): 180–190.
WehrheimJ (2019) Drogen. Stadt- und raumsoziologische Perspektiven. In: FeustelRSchmidt-SemischHBröcklingU (eds) Handbuch Drogen in sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. New York, Dodrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
